From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757362AbcEDK3L (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 06:29:11 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:37761 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751383AbcEDK3J (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 May 2016 06:29:09 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:29:05 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/sysfb_efi: Fix valid BAR address range check
Message-ID: <20160504102905.GF2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1462303781-8686-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <1462303781-8686-3-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160504063524.GB12846@gmail.com>
 <20160504092510.GD2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160504102340.GA4470@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160504102340.GA4470@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 04 May, at 12:23:40PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 04 May, at 08:35:24AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com>
> > > > 
> > > > We can't just break out when meet start is equal to zero,
> > > 
> > > Hm, wot?
> > 
> > The existing code treats address 0x0 as invalid for a PCI BAR range
> > start address, but 0x0 is actually possible and legitimate, so we
> > shouldn't be breaking out of the loop.
> 
> Yeah, so I just don't understand the 'when meet start is equal to zero' part - 
> what does it mean?

I suspect it means "when start is equal to zero" or "when we encounter
the scenario where start is equal to zero".

Wang?